Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Stroke’ Category


COVID and the brain: researchers zero in on how damage occurs

Reporter: Danielle Smolyar

Research Assistant 3 – Text Analysis for 2.0 LPBI Group’s TNS #1 – 2020/2021 Academic Internship in Medical Text Analysis (MTA)

https://anchor.fm/aviva-lev-ari/embed/episodes/COVID-and-the-brain-researchers-zero-in-on-how-damage-occurs-e14589r

Recent evidence has indicated that coronavirus can cause brain fog and also lead to different neurological symptoms. 

Since the beginning of the pandemic, researchers have been trying to understand how the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 affects the brain

Image Credit: Stanislav Krasilnikov/TASS/Getty

image source:https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01693-6?utm_source=Nature+Briefing

New evidence has shown how coronavirus has caused much damage to the brain. There is a new evidence that shows that COVID-19 assault on the brain I has the power to be multipronged. What this means is that it can attack on certain Brain cells such as reduce the amount of blood flow that the brain needs to the brain tissue.

Along with brain damage COVID-19 has also caused strokes and memory loss. A neurologist at yell University Serena Spudich says, “Can we intervene early to address these abnormalities so that people don’t have long-term problems?”

We’re on 80% of the people who have been hospitalized due to COVID-19 have showed brain symptoms which seem to be correlated to coronavirus.

At the start of the pandemic a group of researchers speculated that coronavirus they can damage the brain by infecting the neurons in the cells which are important in the process of transmitting information. After further studies they found out that coronavirus has a harder time getting past the brains defense system and the brain barrier and that it does not affect the neurons in anyway.

An expert in this study indicated that a way in which SARS-CoV-2 may be able to get to the brain is by going through the olfactory mucosa which is the lining of the nasal cavity. It is found that this virus can be found in the nasal cavity which is why we swab the nose one getting tested for COVID-19.

Spudich quotes, “there’s not a tonne of virus in the brain”.

Recent studies indicate that SARS-CoV-2 have ability to infect astrocytes which is a type of cell found in the brain. Astrocytes do quite a lot that supports normal brain function,” including providing nutrients to neurons to keep them working, says Arnold Kriegstein, a neurologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

Astrocytes are star-shaped cells in the central nervous system that perform many functions, including providing nutrients to neurons.

Image Credit: David Robertson, ICR/SPL

image source: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01693-6?utm_source=Nature+Briefing

Kriegstein and his fellow colleagues have found that SARS-CoV-2 I mostly infects the astrocytes over any of the other brain cells present. In this research they expose brain organoids which is a miniature brain that are grown from stem cells into the virus.

As quoted in the article” a group including Daniel Martins-de-Souza, head of proteomics at the University of Campinas in Brazil, reported6 in a February preprint that it had analysed brain samples from 26 people who died with COVID-19. In the five whose brain cells showed evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, 66% of the affected cells were astrocytes.”

The infected astrocytes could indicate the reasoning behind some of the neurological symptoms that come with COVID-19. Specifically, depression, brain fog and fatigue. Kreigstein quotes, “Those kinds of symptoms may not be reflective of neuronal damage but could be reflective of dysfunctions of some sort. That could be consistent with astrocyte vulnerability.”

A study that was published on June 21 they compared eight different brands of deceased people who did have COVID-19 along with 14 brains as the control. The results of this research were that they found that there was no trace of coronavirus Brain infected but they found that the gene expression was affected in some of the astrocytes.

As a result of doing all this research and the findings the researchers want to know more about this topic and how many brain cells need to be infected for there to be neurological symptoms says Ricardo Costa.

Further evidence has also been done on how SARS-CoV-2 can affect the brain by reducing its blood flow which impairs the neurons’ function which ends up killing them.

Pericytes can be found on the small blood vessels which are called capillaries and are found all throughout the body and in the brain. In a February pre-print there was a report about how SARS-CoV-2 can infect the pericyte in the brain organoids. 

David Atwell, a neuroscientist at the University College London, along with his other colleagues had published a pre-print which has evidence to show that SARS-CoV-2 odes In fact pericytes behavior. I researchers saw that in the different part of the hamsters brain SARS-CoV-2 blocks the function of receptors on the pericytes which ultimately causes the capillaries found inside the tissues to constrict.

As stated in the article, It’s a “really cool” study, says Spudich. “It could be something that is determining some of the permanent injury we see — some of these small- vessel strokes.”

Attwell brought to the attention that the drugs that are used to treat high blood pressure may in fact be used in some cases of COVID-19. Currently there are two clinical trials that are being done to further investigate this idea.

There is further evidence showing that the neurological symptoms and damage could in fact be happening because of the bodies on immune system reacting or misfiring after having COVID-19.

Over the past 15 years it has become evident that people’s immune system’s make auto antibodies which attack their own tissues says Harald Prüss in the article who has a Neuroimmunologist at the German Center for neurogenerative Diseases in Berlin. This may cause neuromyelitis optica which is when you can experience loss of vision or weakness in limbs. Harald Prüss summarized that the autoantibodies can pass through the blood brain barrier and ultimately impact neurological disorders such as psychosis.

Prüss and his colleagues published a study last year that focused on them isolating antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 from people. They found that one was able to protect hamsters from lung damage and other infections. The purpose of this was to come up with and create new treatments. During this research they found that some of the antibodies from people. They found that one was able to protect hamsters from lung damage and other infections. The purpose of this was to come up with and create new treatments. During this research they found that some of the antibodies can bind to the brain tissue which can ultimately damage it. Prüss states, “We’re currently trying to prove that clinically and experimentally,” says Prüss.

Was published online in December including Prüss sorry the blood and cerebrospinal fluid of 11 people who were extremely sick with COVID-19. These 11 people had neurological symptoms as well. All these people were able to produce auto antibodies which combined to neurons. There is evidence that when the patients were given intravenous immunoglobin which is a type of antibody it was successful.

Astrocytes, pericytes and autoantibodies we’re not the only  pathways. However it is likely that people with COVID-19 experience article symptoms for many reasons. As stated, In the article, Prüss says a key question is what proportion of cases is caused by each of the pathways. “That will determine treatment,” he says.

SOURCE: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01693-6?utm_source=Nature+Briefing

Original article: 

Marshall, M. (2021, July 7). COVID and the brain: researchers zero in on how damage occurs. Nature News. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01693-6

Other related articles published on this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

Covid-19 and its implications on pregnancy

Reporter and Curator: Mr. Srinjoy Chakraborty (Junior Research Felllow) and Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

Nir Hacohen and Marcia Goldberg, Researchers at MGH and the Broad Institute identify protein “signature” of severe COVID-19

Reporter and Curator:2012pharmaceutical

Identification of Novel genes in human that fight COVID-19 infection

Reporter and Curator: Amandeep Kaur

Comparing COVID-19 Vaccine Schedule Combinations, or “Com-COV” – First-of-its-Kind Study will explore the Impact of using eight different Combinations of Doses and Dosing Intervals for Different COVID-19 Vaccines

Reporter and Curator: 2012pharmaceutical

Early Details of Brain Damage in COVID-19 Patients

Reporter and Curator: Irina Robu, PhD

Read Full Post »


Mechanistic link between SARS-CoV-2 infection and increased risk of stroke using 3D printed models and human endothelial cells

Reporter: Adina Hazan, PhD

 

Kaneko, et al.  from UCLA aimed to explore why SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increased rate of cerebrovascular events, including

  • ischemic stroke and
  • intracerebral hemorrhage

While some suggested mechanisms include an overall systemic inflammatory response including increasing circulating cytokines and leading to a prothrombotic state, this may be only a partial answer. A SARS-CoV-2 specific mechanism could be likely, considering that both angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2), the receptor necessary for SARS-CoV-2 to gain entry into the cell, and SARS-CoV-2 RNA have been reportedly detected in the human brain postmortem.

One of the difficulties in studying vasculature mechanisms is that the inherent 3D shape and blood flow subject this tissue to different stressors, such as flow, that could be critically relevant during inflammation. To accurately study the effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the vasculature of the brain, the team generated 3D models of the human middle cerebral artery during intracranial artery stenosis using data from CT (computed tomography) angiography. This data was then exported with important factors included such as

  • shear stress during perfusion,
  • streamlines, and
  • flow velocity to be used to fabricate 3D models.

These tubes were then coated with endothelial cells isolated and sorted from normal human brain tissue resected during surgery. In doing so, this model could closely mimic the cellular response of the vasculature of the human brain.

Surprisingly, without this 3D tube, human derived brain endothelial cells displayed very little expression of ACE2 or, TMPRSS2 (transmembrane protease 2), a necessary cofactor for SARS-COV-2 viral entry.

Interestingly,

  • horizontal shear stress increased the expression of ACE2 and
  • increased the binding of spike protein to ACE2, especially within the stenotic portion of the 3D model.

By exposing the endothelial cells to liposomes expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, they also were able to explore key upregulated genes in the exposed cells, in which they found that

  • “binding of SARS-CoV-2 S protein triggered 83 unique genes in human brain endothelial cells”.

This included many inflammatory signals, some of which have been previously described as associated with SARS-COV-2, and others whose effects are unknown. This may provide an important foundation for exploring potential therapeutic targets in patients susceptible to cerebrovascular events.

Overall, this study shows important links between the

  • mechanisms of SARS-CoV-2 and the
  • increase in ischemic events in these patients. It also has important implications for
  • treatment for SARS-CoV-2, as high blood pressure and atherosclerosis may be increasing ACE2 expression in patients, providing the entry port for viral particles into brain endothelia.

SOURCE:

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/STROKEAHA.120.032764

Other related articles published in this Open Access Online Scientific Journal include the following:

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Human Heart

Reporters: Justin D. Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC and Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/09/29/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-human-heart/

 

SAR-Cov-2 is probably a vasculotropic RNA virus affecting the blood vessels: Endothelial cell infection and endotheliitis in COVID-19

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN – Bold face and colors are my addition

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2020/06/01/sar-cov-2-is-probably-a-vasculotropic-rna-virus-affecting-the-blood-vessels-endothelial-cell-infection-and-endotheliitis-in-covid-19/

 

Diagnosis of Coronavirus Infection by Medical Imaging and Cardiovascular Impacts of Viral Infection, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN  Lead Curator – e–mail: avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu

Read Full Post »


Reporter and Curator: Dr. Sudipta Saha, Ph.D.

 

Stroke is a leading cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of long-term disability amongst adults, more particularly in patients with diabetes mellitus and arterial hypertension. Increasing evidence suggests that disordered physiological variables following acute ischaemic stroke, especially hyperglycaemia, adversely affect outcomes.

 

Post-stroke hyperglycaemia is common (up to 50% of patients) and may be rather prolonged, regardless of diabetes status. A substantial body of evidence has demonstrated that hyperglycaemia has a deleterious effect upon clinical and morphological stroke outcomes. Therefore, hyperglycaemia represents an attractive physiological target for acute stroke therapies.

 

However, whether intensive glycaemic manipulation positively influences the fate of ischaemic tissue remains unknown. One major adverse event of management of hyperglycaemia with insulin (either glucose-potassium-insulin infusions or intensive insulin therapy) is the occurrence of hypoglycaemia, which can also induce cerebral damage.

 

Doctors all over the world have debated whether intensive glucose management, which requires the use of IV insulin to bring blood sugar levels down to 80-130 mg/dL, or standard glucose control using insulin shots, which aims to get glucose below 180 mg/dL, lead to better outcomes after stroke.

 

A period of hyperglycemia is common, with elevated blood glucose in the periinfarct period consistently linked with poor outcome in patients with and without diabetes. The mechanisms that underlie this deleterious effect of dysglycemia on ischemic neuronal tissue remain to be established, although in vitro research, functional imaging, and animal work have provided clues.

 

While prompt correction of hyperglycemia can be achieved, trials of acute insulin administration in stroke and other critical care populations have been equivocal. Diabetes mellitus and hyperglycemia per se are associated with poor cerebrovascular health, both in terms of stroke risk and outcome thereafter.

 

Interventions to control blood sugar are available but evidence of cerebrovascular efficacy are lacking. In diabetes, glycemic control should be part of a global approach to vascular risk while in acute stroke, theoretical data suggest intervention to lower markedly elevated blood glucose may be of benefit, especially if thrombolysis is administered.

 

Both hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia may lead to further brain injury and clinical deterioration; that is the reason these conditions should be avoided after stroke. Yet, when correcting hyperglycaemia, great care should be taken not to switch the patient into hypoglycaemia, and subsequently aggressive insulin administration treatment should be avoided.

 

Early identification and prompt management of hyperglycaemia, especially in acute ischaemic stroke, is recommended. Although the appropriate level of blood glucose during acute stroke is still debated, a reasonable approach is to keep the patient in a mildly hyperglycaemic state, rather than risking hypoglycaemia, using continuous glucose monitoring.

 

The primary results from the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) study, a large, multisite clinical study showed that intensive glucose management did not improve functional outcomes at 90 days after stroke compared to standard glucose therapy. In addition, intense glucose therapy increased the risk of very low blood glucose (hypoglycemia) and required a higher level of care such as increased supervision from nursing staff, compared to standard treatment.

 

References:

 

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-provides-answer-long-held-debate-blood-sugar-control-after-stroke

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27873213

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19342845

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20491782

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21211743

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18690907

 

Read Full Post »


UPDATED on 12/26/2020 – CABG: a Superior Revascularization Modality to PCI in Patients with poor LVF, Multivessel disease and Diabetes, Similar Risk of Stroke between 31 days and 5 years, post intervention

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

UPDATED on 12/26/2020

Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease

List of authors.

  • Gregg W. Stone, M.D.,
  • A. Pieter Kappetein, M.D., Ph.D.,
  • Joseph F. Sabik, M.D.,
  • Stuart J. Pocock, Ph.D.,
  • Marie-Claude Morice, M.D.,
  • John Puskas, M.D.,
  • David E. Kandzari, M.D.,
  • Dimitri Karmpaliotis, M.D.,
  • W. Morris Brown, III, M.D.,
  • Nicholas J. Lembo, M.D.,
  • Adrian Banning, M.D.,
  • Béla Merkely, M.D.,
  • et al.,
  •  for the EXCEL Trial Investigators*

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents, as compared with coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), in patients with left main coronary artery disease are not clearly established.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity (according to assessment at the participating centers) to undergo either PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt–chromium everolimus-eluting stents (PCI group, 948 patients) or CABG (CABG group, 957 patients). The primary outcome was a composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

RESULTS

At 5 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 22.0% of the patients in the PCI group and in 19.2% of the patients in the CABG group (difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.9 to 6.5; P=0.13). Death from any cause occurred more frequently in the PCI group than in the CABG group (in 13.0% vs. 9.9%; difference, 3.1 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.2 to 6.1). In the PCI and CABG groups, the incidences of definite cardiovascular death (5.0% and 4.5%, respectively; difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.4 to 2.5) and myocardial infarction (10.6% and 9.1%; difference, 1.4 percentage points; 95% CI, −1.3 to 4.2) were not significantly different. All cerebrovascular events were less frequent after PCI than after CABG (3.3% vs. 5.2%; difference, −1.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.8 to 0), although the incidence of stroke was not significantly different between the two groups (2.9% and 3.7%; difference, −0.8 percentage points; 95% CI, −2.4 to 0.9). Ischemia-driven revascularization was more frequent after PCI than after CABG (16.9% vs. 10.0%; difference, 6.9 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.7 to 10.0).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with left main coronary artery disease of low or intermediate anatomical complexity, there was no significant difference between PCI and CABG with respect to the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; EXCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01205776. opens in new tab.)

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1909406

 

Is the Tide Turning on the ‘Grubby’ Affair of EXCEL and the European Guidelines?

Taggart was chair of the surgical committee for the Abbott-sponsored EXCEL trial, which compared two procedures for patients who had blockages in their left main coronary artery: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using coronary stents, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). The investigators designed the trial to compare outcomes for the two treatments using a composite endpoint of death, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI). The 3-year follow-up data had been published in NEJM without controversy — or, at least, without public controversy.

But when it came time to publish the 5-year follow-up, there was a significantly higher rate of death in the stent group, and both Taggart and the journal editors were concerned that this finding was being downplayed in the manuscript.

In their comments to the authors, the journal editors had recommended including the mortality difference (unless clearly trivial) ‘”in the concluding statement in the final paragraph.” Yet, the concluding statement of the published paper read that there “was no significant difference between PCI and CABG.”

Over a year after the BBC received the leaked data, the EXCEL investigators published an analysis of the primary outcome using the universal definition of MI data in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

It shows 141 events in the PCI arm compared to 102 in the CABG arm. The investigators acknowledge that the rates of procedural MI differ depending on the definition used. According to their analysis, the protocol definition was predictive of mortality after both treatments, whereas the universal definition of procedural MI was predictive of mortality only after CABG. Not everyone agrees with this interpretation, and an accompanying editorial questioned these conclusions.

As for the guidelines, the tide may be turning.

In a joint statement with EACTS on October 6, 2020, the ESC agreed to review its guidelines for left main disease in the light of emerging, longer-term outcome data from the trials of CABG vs PCI.

SOURCE

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/939944?src=WNL_infoc_201226_MSCPEDIT_excel2&uac=93761AJ&impID=2758606&faf=1#vp_5

UPDATED on 9/4/2019

SYNTAX at 10 Years: Bypass vs PCI Still a Toss-Up Overall

But CABG beats stenting for important subgroups

SOURCE

https://www.medpagetoday.com/meetingcoverage/esc/81944?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2019-09-04&eun=g99985d0r&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Headlines%202019-09-04&utm_term=NL_Daily_DHE_Active

Lancet Study, 2/2018

Interpretation

CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

JACC Study, 7/2018

CONCLUSIONS

This individual patient-data pooled analysis demonstrates that 5-year stroke rates are significantly lower after PCI compared with CABG, driven by a reduced risk of stroke in the 30-day post-procedural period but a similar risk of stroke between 31 days and 5 years. The greater risk of stroke after CABG compared with PCI was confined to patients with multivessel disease and diabetes. Five-year mortality was markedly higher for patients experiencing a stroke within 30 days after revascularization.

European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Study, 6/2018

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a longer length of hospital stay, patients with impaired LVF requiring intervention for coronary artery disease experienced a greater post-procedural survival benefit if they received CABG compared to PCI. We have demonstrated this at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 8 years following revascularization. At present, CABG remains a superior revascularization modality to PCI in patients with poor LVF.

 

New Studies on Clinical Outcomes from two Revascularization Strategies: CABG and PCI

 

J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Jul 24;72(4):386-398. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071.

Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are used for coronary revascularization in patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease. Stroke is among the most feared complications of revascularization. Due to its infrequency, studies with large numbers of patients are required to detect differences in stroke rates between CABG and PCI.

OBJECTIVES:

This study sought to compare rates of stroke after CABG and PCI and the impact of procedural stroke on long-term mortality.

METHODS:

We performed a collaborative individual patient-data pooled analysis of 11 randomized clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents; ERACI II (Argentine Randomized Study: Coronary Angioplasty With Stenting Versus Coronary Bypass Surgery in Patients With Multiple Vessel Disease) (n = 450), ARTS (Arterial Revascularization Therapy Study) (n = 1,205), MASS II (Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study) (n = 408), SoS (Stent or Surgery) trial (n = 988), SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial (n = 1,800), PRECOMBAT (Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease) trial (n = 600), FREEDOM (Comparison of Two Treatments for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease in Individuals With Diabetes) trial (n = 1,900), VA CARDS (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) (n = 198), BEST (Bypass Surgery Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease) (n = 880), NOBLE (Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Treatment of Unprotected Left Main Stenosis) trial (n = 1,184), and EXCEL (Evaluation of Xience Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial (n = 1,905). The 30-day and 5-year stroke rates were compared between CABG and PCI using a random effects Cox proportional hazards model, stratified by trial. The impact of stroke on 5-year mortality was explored.

RESULTS:

The analysis included 11,518 patients randomly assigned to PCI (n = 5,753) or CABG (n = 5,765) with a mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 1.4 years during which a total of 293 strokes occurred. At 30 days, the rate of stroke was 0.4% after PCI and 1.1% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.20 to 0.53; p < 0.001). At 5-year follow-up, stroke remained significantly lower after PCI than after CABG (2.6% vs. 3.2%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.97; p = 0.027). Rates of stroke between 31 days and 5 years were comparable: 2.2% after PCI versus 2.1% after CABG (HR: 1.05; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.38; p = 0.72). No significant interactions between treatment and baseline clinical or angiographic variables for the 5-year rate of stroke were present, except for diabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 4.9%) and nondiabetic patients (PCI: 2.6% vs. CABG: 2.4%) (p for interaction = 0.004). Patients who experienced a stroke within 30 days of the procedure had significantly higher 5-year mortality versus those without a stroke, both after PCI (45.7% vs. 11.1%, p < 0.001) and CABG (41.5% vs. 8.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS:

This individual patient-data pooled analysis demonstrates that 5-year stroke rates are significantly lower after PCI compared with CABG, driven by a reduced risk of stroke in the 30-day post-procedural period but a similar risk of stroke between 31 days and 5 years. The greater risk of stroke after CABG compared with PCI was confined to patients with multivessel disease and diabetes. Five-year mortality was markedly higher for patients experiencing a stroke within 30 days after revascularization.

KEYWORDS:

coronary artery bypass graft; left main; mortality; multivessel; percutaneous coronary intervention; stenting; stroke

PMID:
30025574
DOI:
10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071

 

Lancet Study

Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, Ahn JM, Boersma E, Christiansen EH, Domanski MJ, Farkouh ME, Flather M, Fuster V, Hlatky MA, Holm NR, Hueb WA, Kamalesh M, Kim YH, Mäkikallio T, Mohr FW, Papageorgiou G, Park SJ, Rodriguez AE, Sabik JF, Stables RH, Stone GW, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018 Feb 22 [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30423-9. PMID: 29478841

Summary

Background

Numerous randomised trials have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, no studies have been powered to detect a difference in mortality between the revascularisation strategies.

Methods

We did a systematic review up to July 19, 2017, to identify randomised clinical trials comparing CABG with PCI using stents. Eligible studies included patients with multivessel or left main coronary artery disease who did not present with acute myocardial infarction, did PCI with stents (bare-metal or drug-eluting), and had more than 1 year of follow-up for all-cause mortality. In a collaborative, pooled analysis of individual patient data from the identified trials, we estimated all-cause mortality up to 5 years using Kaplan-Meier analyses and compared PCI with CABG using a random-effects Cox proportional-hazards model stratified by trial. Consistency of treatment effect was explored in subgroup analyses, with subgroups defined according to baseline clinical and anatomical characteristics.

Findings

We included 11 randomised trials involving 11 518 patients selected by heart teams who were assigned to PCI (n=5753) or to CABG (n=5765). 976 patients died over a mean follow-up of 3·8 years (SD 1·4). Mean Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score was 26·0 (SD 9·5), with 1798 (22·1%) of 8138 patients having a SYNTAX score of 33 or higher. 5 year all-cause mortality was 11·2% after PCI and 9·2% after CABG (hazard ratio [HR] 1·20, 95% CI 1·06–1·37; p=0·0038). 5 year all-cause mortality was significantly different between the interventions in patients with multivessel disease (11·5% after PCI vs 8·9% after CABG; HR 1·28, 95% CI 1·09–1·49; p=0·0019), including in those with diabetes (15·5% vs 10·0%; 1·48, 1·19–1·84; p=0·0004), but not in those without diabetes (8·7% vs 8·0%; 1·08, 0·86–1·36; p=0·49). SYNTAX score had a significant effect on the difference between the interventions in multivessel disease. 5 year all-cause mortality was similar between the interventions in patients with left main disease (10·7% after PCI vs 10·5% after CABG; 1·07, 0·87–1·33; p=0·52), regardless of diabetes status and SYNTAX score.

Interpretation

CABG had a mortality benefit over PCI in patients with multivessel disease, particularly those with diabetes and higher coronary complexity. No benefit for CABG over PCI was seen in patients with left main disease. Longer follow-up is needed to better define mortality differences between the revascularisation strategies.

SOURCE

European Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery Study, 6/2018

 

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018 Jun 22. doi: 10.1093/ejcts/ezy236. [Epub ahead of print]

Comparison of the survival between coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with poor left ventricular function (ejection fraction <30%): a propensity-matched analysis.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

Existing evidence comparing the outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with poor left ventricular function (LVF) is sparse and flawed. This is largely due to patients with poor LVF being underrepresented in major research trials and the outdated nature of some studies that do not consider drug-eluting stent PCI.

METHODS:

Following strict inclusion criteria, 717 patients who underwent revascularization by CABG or PCI between 2002 and 2015 were enrolled. All patients had poor LVF (defined by ejection fraction <30%). By employing a propensity score analysis, 134 suitable matches (67 CABG and 67 PCI) were identified. Several outcomes were evaluated, in the matched population, using data extracted from national registry databases.

RESULTS:

CABG patients required a longer length of hospital stay post-revascularization compared to PCI in the propensity-matched population, 7 days (lower-upper quartile; 6-12) and 2 days (lower-upper quartile; 1-6), respectively (Mood’s median test, P = 0.001). Stratified Cox-regression proportional-hazards analysis of the propensity-matched population found that PCI patients experienced a higher adjusted 8-year mortality rate (hazard ratio 3.291, 95% confidence interval 1.776-6.101; P < 0.001). This trend was consistent amongst urgent cases of revascularization: patients with 3 or more vessels with coronary artery disease and patients where complete revascularization was achieved. Although sub-analyses found no difference between survival distributions of on-pump versus off-pump CABG (log-rank P = 0.726), both modes of CABG were superior to PCI (stratified log-rank P = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS:

Despite a longer length of hospital stay, patients with impaired LVF requiring intervention for coronary artery disease experienced a greater post-procedural survival benefit if they received CABG compared to PCI. We have demonstrated this at 30 days, 90 days, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years and 8 years following revascularization. At present, CABG remains a superior revascularization modality to PCI in patients with poor LVF.

Read Full Post »